Categorical Imperative Vs Stoic Virtue Ethics

Virtue Theory is one of many different moral theories that exist today. It is based off of Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics which focuses on having an ideal character. The main focus of Virtue Theory is the role of one’s character, which is closely related to its roots in Aristotle. A Virtue Theorist would do things because it is who they themselves are, not because it is good to do them or because they will get something good from doing them.

Virtue ethics is a theory of ethics in moral philosophy in which it emphasizes that the notion of virtue is key to a

The Virtue Theory, also know as Virtue Ethics, refers to the character of each person. This theory states that every person should try for excellence. The characteristics of each individual are made up from their environment that they are a part of. The theory would further suggest

22. The Stoics believed that the entire universe is an ordered reality, it forms part of a whole cosmos in which all contradictions are resolved for the ultimate good. The universe then follows a determined, logical path that leads to a final perfection. All the things that happen in life, good and evil, is rigidly determined in accordance to a rational purpose. This course of the universe is unchangeable. Therefore, no individual could escape or change his destiny, no one was master of his fate.

The first theory I will compare virtue ethics against is ethical egoism. The two theories share a commonality apart from being normative in nature. They both seek what is best for the doer. Aristotle claimed that happiness is ultimately attained by striving for the “function of man” which is the excellence found within virtue. This is comparable to ethical egoism because of it’s principle of exclusively acting in one’s own best interest. While virtue ethics states that a virtuous character is the goal, ethical egoism is not specific to what is in a person’s best interest. If attaining a virtuous character is

Virtue ethics sets itself apart from the other two; according to Consequentialists virtue ethics tends to promote good consequences. Virtue ethics does not benefit when it is with itself, but when it is with good standards and choices. It takes account more than just the knowledge of a human; Motivation, emotions, wisdom, moral education, and much more. It scales reason and emotions at the same level whereas consequentialism and deontology prefer reason over emotions. Virtue ethics is described as a more open topic that can be explained in multiple ways compared to consequentialism and deontology which tend to be monistic about value.

Utilitarianism, deontological, and virtue theory ethics are three normative approaches to ethics. This paper will go over the similarities and differences between virtue theory, utilitarianism, and deontological principles. It will include information of the variations in how each concept details ethics, morality, and it will also discuss a personal experience to describe the correlation between virtue, values, and moral perceptions as they relate to one of the three theories.

second is that virtue ethics is generally similar to utilitarian theory and Kantian theory. The third

Ethics and virtue have been a very contentious issue facing society for centuries. Many argue over the merits of various theories, each with its own philosophies and assumptions. It is this argument that has given rise to many popular and followed theories of ethics and virtues. The theories discussed primarily in this document include the virtue theory, utilitarianism, and deontological theory. Each is very distinct to the others in regards to its principles and assumptions regarding human behavior. Each however, has merit in regards to question of ethics and virtue, and how it should subsequently be valued.

Virtue Ethics is neither deontological nor teleological, since it is concerned with neither duty nor consequences, but rather the state of the person acting. Aristotle believed that once you are good, good actions will necessarily follow, and this belief is at the centre of Virtue Ethics. Rather than defining good actions, Virtue Ethics looks at good people and the qualities that make them good. The non-normative theory, although very effective in determining the morality of individuals, is particularly flawed when applied to whole societies. This weakness is largely due to its imprecision and abstraction; however, before these weaknesses can be considered, it is necessary to give an account of the theory itself.

To first create an argument over the conflict of virtues one must first understand what makes a virtue a virtue. In Aristotelian Virtue Ethics, a virtue is described as something a virtuous person does. In turn, a virtuous person is someone who does virtuous acts. This is where a big issue arises in this theory. There are hardly any ground laws

Virtue, when I hear that word I think of value and morality and only good people can be virtuous. When I hear the word ethics I think of good versus evil, wrong and right. Now when the two are put together you get virtue ethics. You may wonder what can virtue ethics possibly mean. It’s just two words put together to form some type of fancy theory. Well this paper will discuss virtue ethics and the philosophy behind it.

An advantage of virtue ethics is that it brings in all the qualities of being human such as reason, responsibility and emotion to influence a person’s ethical consideration. This can be applied in situations where a person asks what sort of person he or she should be. However, our text book clarifies that “determining what the specific virtues are, and what the appropriate balance among those virtues should be, can be difficult” (Mosser, 2011).

One of the last major philosophers of Virtue Ethics was Plutarch who advocated virtue but disagreed with Epicurus because he believed there was no true pleasure. At this same time, between 400 B.C.- 40 B.C. Stoic philosophers such Cicero, who combined the philosophies of Aristotle and Plato, developed his idea on ethics and how everyone has a duty and should imitate virtue for others. He said duty has two points which are to achieve the Supreme Good, and follow the rules for daily living. Cicero was a strong believer in rationality incorporated Plato’s Cardinal Virtues into his three rules of conduct: master desires through reason, know true value of goals and be moderate in actions and lifestyle.

Kant thinks that the basic moral principles of our society come from people’s rationality, and people must follow these principles unconditionally. These moral principles are the Categorical Imperative. Meanwhile, its common rules have different directions in society. To conclude these directions, it can be reflected from three different formulations. Among the three formulations, the first formulation of universal law has standout features in the maxim and the constraints about people’s behaviors. With combined analysis of examples, the drawbacks of universal law also appear out.